Back to Boston.com homepage Arts | Entertainment Boston Globe Online Cars.com BostonWorks Real Estate Boston.com Sports digitalMass Travel The Boston Globe Spotlight Investigation Boston.com Abuse in the Catholic Church
HomePredator priestsScandal and coverupThe victimsThe financial costOpinion
Cardinal Law and the laityThe church's responseThe clergyInvestigations and lawsuits
Interactive2002 scandal overviewParish mapExtrasArchivesDocumentsAbout this site
 Latest coverage

October 25
Victims could now collect

October 2
Geoghan's sister hits guards

October 1
Geoghan's sister to speak

September 27
Conviction erasure protested
Druce is hospitalized again
Guard ad seeks understanding

September 24
Inquiry: Druce beaten as child

September 20
Druce pleads not guilty in slay
Geoghan claims guard assault

September 14
Report says Druce in a rage

September 13
Letter: Druce abused as a boy

September 12
Geoghan bore guards' abuse
Lawyer: Mail deluges accused

September 11
Expanded panel is sought

September 8
Druce is returned from hospital

September 5
Geoghan consultant ties eyed

September 4
Conflict raised on consultant

September 3
Bias concerns raised in probe

September 2
No new panel members seen

August 31
Geoghan panel to expand

Earlier stories

Search for:
Time period:

Spotlight Report

Appeal filed to restore abuse case

By John Ellement, Globe Staff, 5/25/2002

Saying the victim was too young to remember some events correctly, Suffolk County prosecutors yesterday asked a judge to reinstate the two most serious criminal charges against defrocked priest John Geoghan.

Suffolk Superior Court Judge Margaret Hinkle ruled in March that prosecutors had waited too long to file rape charges dating back to the 1980s against Geoghan. Hinkle concluded that the statute of limitations had expired in 1996. Prosecutors did not bring the charges until 1999.

Suffolk Assistant District Attorney Alex Philipson said Hinkle should take another look at the chronology.

He said the victim was wrong when he testified to Boston police and prosecutors in 1986 that he reported being raped by Geoghan. At that time, Philipson said, the victim only disclosed that Geoghan had fondled him.

Philipson said the victim's mother and other witnesses first heard of the rape allegations in 1989, which put the alleged crime within the statute of limitations.

''What we have here is a victim who is simply wrong about the date,'' Philipson said outside the courtroom.

But Geoghan's attorney, Geoffrey Packard, told Hinkle she should believe the timeline provided by the victim and refuse to reinstate the charges. Packard said there are no police reports or other records that contradict the victim's recollection.

Hinkle took the matter under advisement.

Geoghan still faces trial on two counts of indecent assault and battery that allegedly occurred in the 1990s, well within the statute of limitations. He is already serving a 9- to 10-year state prison term for touching a boy's buttocks in a public swimming pool.

Also yesterday, Suffolk Assistant District Attorney David Deakin filed a motion asking for the opportunity to call other alleged victims of Geoghan at the criminal trial to show he engaged in a pattern of illegal conduct.

This story ran on page A7 of the Boston Globe on 5/25/2002.
© Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company.


© Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
Advertise | Contact us | Privacy policy